Jorge Castaneda is a policymaker and professor of great interest who writes about Mexico and Latin America as a whole. During my time working in Washington DC, it seemed like he put off many policymakers inside the Beltway during his time as Mexico’s Foreign Minister as part of the Fox Administration from 2000 to 2003. Many claim he left that position in 2003 due to his open and honest approach, some would say overly honest approach, towards policymaking between the US and Latin America. Currently he teaches at NYU, and over the years has produced some very strong centrist articles and books on topics covering Mexico, Latin American foreign policy and US foreign policy towards Latin America. Last week he wrote a fascinating article in The New Republic that will likely characterize policy towards the region over the next decade. The Article at TNR.com called Adios, Monroe Doctrine: When the Yanquis go home is Mr. Castaneda’s contribution to the series of New Years 2010 articles predicting the future of the region over the next twelve months and longer. He discusses the lack of involvement the US has had in the region over the last few years, and is one of the few experts on foreign policy in the region who has praised the reduction of US involvement, while pointing out that the US needs to still realize its natural role within Latin America.
Castaneda is one of the few writers on Latin American relations who writes in the same un-tempered fashion in Spanish for the Latin American audience as he does in English for a mostly US based audience. While policymaking involves wording criticism diplomatically as well as achieving goals which are often based on compromise as well as interest, his activities as an academic at NYC allows for open critical thought as well as a balanced and realistic approach towards US-Latin American relations. This is surely a result of his time as a diplomat affecting his time as an academic, and is appreciated on a practical level. His recent article is a reflection of this, as he asks the question whether the lack of US involvement is due to an inability to control conflicts in the region, or does the US simply not care about Latin America as a whole? He points out two major issues in the region over the last decade, that of the degree and failure of US involvement in ousting Chavez, and the will to construct an immigration wall on the US-Mexico border. Generally those two “major” policy events have had little impact on US relations as a whole. Chavez’s experience in possibly becoming a victim of an assassination attempt has become the core thesis of every speech he has given since 2002, and will soon be put on the big screen by director Oliver Stone, and the poor economic conditions in the US has reduced the number of migrants crossing the border for the time being. US allies in the region have had their own successes, namely Brazil economically, and Colombia in ensuring its own internal security, or at least giving a lot of reassurance to Colombia’s citizens that the government is regaining control for the first time in a generation. The leftists in the region have had some influence as well, but have not changed the environment for the US to such a degree that massive involvement by the US in the region would make a difference for Obama or the US in general. Most left wing criticisms still do focus on the US, but a lack of action by the US might force left wing leaders to claim personal responsibility for any internal issues as opposed to using the US as a scapegoat, whether they had involvement or not. The history of the US in Latin America does give a lot of ammunition to leftists in the region, but with Venezuela still selling oil to the US and Ecuador still basing its currency on US dollars, rhetoric does not seem to have much influence these days on actual policy, albeit as long as everyone knows where to draw the line between actions and words.
Castaneda writes that two events might return the US to its former position as hegemon of Latin America. While many elections in smaller countries have been influenced by left wing leaders in Latin America, a country like Peru, with a lot of US investment, might create a cause for a stricter response from the US if this larger and wealthier nation were to become the next Venezuela. Recent nationalisations without just compensation of industries in Venezuela by the office of the President is likely the expected line in the sand for US involvement in Venezuela, but would not be seen as acceptable towards US companies in Peru. Another action that would likely elicit a strong response from the US is the increase in physical activities between Iran and Venezuela. While Brazil has opened some ties with Iran economically, political ties linking weapons or nuclear exchanges has been discouraged in Brazil. These ties however have been encouraged by Chavez in Venezuela, and while Castaneda claims that those ties are simply rhetoric in nature at the moment, he also states that a physical exchange would bring a strong response from the US, especially considering the amount of Russian arms that have been flowing into Venezuela recently and if those arms are found to be sent to Iran, or nuclear material is found to be send to Venezuela.
While we often write about similar issues on the Latin America Blog, it is interesting to compare and contrast similar debates with other experts. While there is a lot of agreement on the issues, I wished to note that there was no discussion of trade between places like China, and how that might affect US relations with Latin America, as it would affect relations between the US and Iran, or the US and Africa. I encourage comments on these topics and hope that everyone will take a moment to read Jorge Castaneda’s article. It is quite fascinating.
FPA Latin America blog is proud to bring you Sean Murphy from the 